CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS 8.1 General Conclusions 7 a In this book, we have attempted to give, at a fairly advanced level tor "a unifed treatment of current methodologies for the design and analysis of adaptive control algorithms, ; First, we presented several schemes for the adaptive identification and contol of linear time invariant systems, An output eror scheme, an input error scheme, and an indirect scheme were derived in a unifi framework Whi al the schemes were shown tobe globally sable, te assumptions that went into the derivation of the schemes were quite different. For instance, the input error adaptive cortral scheme did i require a strictly positive real (SPR) condition for the reference mode ‘This also had implications for the transient behavior of the adaptive sys- tems. ; ‘A malo gol of this book bas been the presentation of a number of recent techniques for analyzing the stability, parameter convergence ar robusines of the complinied nonlinear dynamics herent i the adap, tive algorithms. For the stability proofs, we presented a sequence of lemmas drawn from the literature on input-output L, stability. For the parameter convergence proofs, we used results from generalized har- analysis, and extracted frequency-domain conditions. For the study of robustness, we exploited Lyapunov and averaging methods, We feel that a complete mastery of these techniques will lay the groundwor for future studies of adaptive systems. 324 Section 8.1 General Conclusions 328 While we did not deal explicitly with discrete time systems, our Bresentation of the continuous time results may be transcribed to the diserete time case with not much dificulty. The operator relationships that were used for continuous time systems (L, spaces) also hold true for discrete time systems (l, spaces). In fact, many derivations may be simplified in the discrete time case because continuity conditions (euch 4 the regularity of signals) are then automaticaly satished ‘Averaging techniques have proved extremely useful and it is likely that important developments will stil follow from their use. It iy interesting to note that the two-time scale approximation was not only fundamental to the application of averaging methods to convergence (Chapter 4) and to robustness (Chapter 5), but was also underlying in the Proofs of ‘exponential convergence (Chapter 2), and plobal. stability (Chapter 3). This highlights the separation between adaptation and com, trol, and makes the connections between direct and indirect adaptive control more obvious. Methods for the analysis of adaptive systems were a focal point of this book. As was observed in Chapter 5, algorithms that are stable for some inputs may be unstable for others, While simulations, are {fatremely valuable to illustrate a point, they are useless to prove any glo, bal behavior of the adaptive algorithm. This is a crucial consequence of the nonlinearity of the adaptive systems, that makes rigorous analysis techniques essential to progress inthe area, 82 Future Research Adaptive control is a very active area of research, and there is a great deal more to be done. The area of robustness is essential to successful applications, and since the work of Rohrs et al, it has been understood that the questions of robustness for adaptive systems are very different fiom the same questions for linear time-invariant systems. This is due in great part to the dual control aspect of adaptive systems: the refer. face input plays a role in determining the convergence and robustness by providing excitation to the identification loop. A major problem Fomains {o quantify robustness for adaptive systems, Current theory d2¢s not allow for the comparison of the robustness of different adaptive systems, and the relation to non-adaptive robustness concepts. Closer fonnections will probably emerge from the application of averaging methods, and from the-frequency-domain results that they lead to. Besides these fundamental questions of analysis, much remains to te done to precisely define design methodologies for robust adaptive sys. lems and in particular a better understanding of which algorithms sec more robust. Indeed, although the adaptive systems discussed in this book have identical stability properties in the ideal case, there ic326 Conclusions Chapter 8 evidence that their behavior is drastically different in the presence of unmodeled dynamics. A better understanding of which algorithms are ‘more robust will also help in deriving guidelines for the improved design of robust algorithms, While we have extensively discussed the analysis of adaptive sys- tems, we also feel that great strides in this area will come from experi ences in implementing the algorithms on several classes of systems. With the advent of microprocessors, and of today’s multi-processor environments, complicated algorithms can now be implemented at very high sample rates. The years to come will see a proliferation of tech- niques to effectively map these adaptive algorithms onto multiprocessor control architectures. There is a great deal of excitement in the control community at large over the emergence of such custom multiprocessor control architectures as CONDOR (Narasimhan et al [1988]) and NYMPH (Chen er af [1986]). In turn, such advances will make it possi- ble to exploit adaptive techniques on high bandwidth systems such as exible space structures, aircraft flight control systems, light weight robot manipulators, and the like. While past successes of adaptive control have been on systems of rather low bandwidth and benign dynamics, the Future years are going to be ones of experimentation on more challenging systems. ‘Two other areas that promise explosive growth in the years to come are adaptive control of multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems, and adaptive control of nonlinear systems, explicitly those linearizable by state feedback, We presented in this book what we feel is the tip of the iceberg in these areas. More needs to be understocd about the sort of prior information needed for MIMO adaptive systems. Conversely, the incorporation of various forms of prior knowledge into black-box models of MIMO systems also needs to be studied. Adaptive control for MIMO systems is especially attractive because the traditional and heuristic tech- niques for SISO systems quickly fall apart when strong cross-couplings appear. Note also that research in the identification of MIMO systems is also relevant to nonadaptive algorithms, which are largely dependent on the knowledge of a process model, and of its uncertainty. One may hope that the recently introduced averaging techniques will help to better connect the frequency-domain properties of adaptive and nona- daptive systems, A very large class of nonlinear systems is explicitly linearizable by state feedback. The chief difficulty with implementing the linearizing control law is the imprecise knowledge of the nonlinear functions in the dynamics, some of which are often specified in table look-up form. ‘Adaptation then has a role in helping identify the nonlinear functions on-line to obtain asymptotically the correct linearizirg control law. This Section 8.2 Future Research a Approach was discussed in this book, bu itis stl in its early develop- ment. However, we have found it valuable inthe implementtioe alg siapive contiler fran india root Cie "Adepel) ant curently working on 2 Bight control sistem for 2 vena! heat landing aircraft (the Harrier), - Solr and In adtion to al these exciting new directions of research in adap- tive control, most of which ae logal extensions and outgiowite ofthe developments presented inthe previous chapters, we som pve fee ather new vistas which are not ay abvious extensions, ‘A “Universal” Theory of Adaptive Control While all the adaptive control algorithms developed in this book required assumptions on the plant—in the single-input single-output case, the order of the plant, the relative degree of the plant, the sign of the high-frequency gain, and the minimum phase property of the plant itis interesting to ask if these assumptions are a minimal set of assump. tions. Indeed, that these assumptions can be relaxed was established by Morse (1985, 1987], Mudgett and Morse [1985], Nussbaum {1983}, and Martenson [1985] among others. Chief under the assumptions that could be relaxed was the one on the sign of the high-frequency gain, There is a simple instance of these results which is in some sense Fepresentative of the whole family: consider the problem of adaptively Labitzing a fst order linear plant of relative degree with unknown in ky i, Jp = Ay Yp + kyu 6.2.1) With y different from zero but otherwise unknown, and dy unknown, If the sign of k, is known and assumed positive, the adaptive control law 1 dly (8.2.2) and dy = yp (8.2.3) gan be shown to yield yp 0 as 1 +00, Nussbaum [1983] proposed that ifthe sign of ky is unknown, the control law (8.2.2) can be replaced y 4 = dB (0) 005 (de(t))»p (8.2.4) with (8.2.3) as before, He then showed that yp» 0 as ¢ + co, with dd) remaining bounded. Heuristically, the feedback gain d3 ristically, the feedback gain d? cos(do) of (82.4) alternates in sign (“searches for the correct sign”) as dp is328 Conclusions Chapter 8 decreased monotonically (by (8.2.3)) until it is large enough and of the "correct sign” to stabilize the equation (8.2.1). While the transient behavior of the algorithm (8.2.3), (8.2.4) is poor, the scheme has stimulated a great deal of interest to derive adap- tive control schemes requiring a minimal set of assumptions on the plant (universal controllers). A further objective is to develop a unified frame- work which would subsume all the algorithms presented thus far. Adap- tive systems may be seen as the interconnection of a plant, a parameter- ized controller, and adaptation law or tuner (cf. Morse [1988)). The parameterized controller is assumed to control the process, and the tuner assumed to tune the controller. Tuning is said to have taken place when a suitable tuning error goes to zero. The goal of a universal theory is 10 sive @ minimal set of assumptions on the process, the parameterized controller, and the tuner to guarantee global stability and asymptotic performance of the closed loop system, Further, the assumptions are to contain as special cases the algorithms presented thus far. Such a theory would be extremely valuable from a conceptual and intellectual stand- point. Rule-Based, Expert and Learning Control Systems As the discussions in Chapter 5 indicated, there is a great deal of work needed to implement a given adaptive algorithm, involving the use of heuristics, prior knowledge, and expertise about the system being con- trolled (such as the amount of noise, the order of the plant, the number of unknown parameters, the bandwidth of the parameters’ variation...) This may be coded as several logic steps or rules, around the adaptive control algorithm, The resulting composite algorithm is often referred to as a rule-based control law, with the adaptation scheme being one of the rules, The design and evaluation of such composite systems is still an open area of research for nonadaptive as well as adaptive systems, although adaptive control algorithms form an especially attractive area of application. One can conceive of a more complex scenario, in which the plant to be controlled cannot be easily modeled, either as a linear or nonlinear system because of the complexity of the physical processes involved. A controller then has to be built by codifying systematically into rules the experience gained from operating the system (this is referred to as query ing and representation of expert knowledge). The rules then serve as @ model of the plant from which the controller is constructed as a rule- based system, ie. a conjunction of several logic steps and control algo- rithms. Such a composite de.ign process is called a rule-based expert controller design. ‘The sophistication and performance of the controller is dependent on the amount of detail in the model furnished by the Section 8.2 Future Research 329 pert kaowledge. Adaptation and learning in this framework consist in reining the rule-based model on the experience salned duseg ie course of operation ofthe system. While this framework is extremely attractive ftom a practical poin control have been implemented, and state ofthe art in learning fos vole based models is rudimentary. In the context of adaptive contol vec) interesting study is found in Astrom et ai [1986]. Adapted from theiy work is Figure 8. illustrating the structure of F ture of an exper using an adaptive algorithm. a rue. BAseo EXPERT sysrem excrTarion MONTOR IDENTIFIER ALGORITHM Process exogenous iNeuT conTRoL. ALconTaM Figure 8.1: Expert Adaptive Control System The rule-based system decides, based onthe ides, based on the lve of excitation, which of a library of identification algorithms to use and, If nese ee ene new excitation, It also decides which of a family of eontel ews tre and communicates its nferencing its inferencing procedures tothe operator. & taper, sor provides alarms and interrupts. " Asupervs Adaptation, Learning, Connectonism and all hose things While the topics in the title have the sam il ve the same general philosophical goals, namely, the understanding, modeling and contol of «given proces we fields of identification and adaptive control have made the largest strides in becoming design methodology. by limiting heir vanvens et course fo a small (ut pracy meaning) cass of sues wih near or linearizable dynamics, anda finite dimensional sie ‘Learning has, however, been merely parameter updating. a